NationStates Jolt Archive


Ejection from the UN

James Ellis
22-02-2005, 17:31
I've been jsut kicked out of the UN for repeatedly submitting inappropriate proposals. All, bar one, were because the description and content matter didn't match. But in some cases, i disagree! For example, my "redefinition of environment" was under the "environment" category and was deleted! Which one was it meant to be under??? I did one about restricting the age for marriage and put it under human rights, but apparently it should have been under moral decency. Now what on earth has this got to do with morality??? Morality is about how we make our decisions and what ethical framework we adopt - it is NOT about whether 16 yr olds should be allowed to marry in the interest of a healthy marriage. Furthermore, I proposed that we shouldn't disarm all nuclear weapons, and put this under "global disarmament." But this was deleted too! Now common sense would tell me that a proposal about disarmament should be under the disarmament category.

I suggest that either the categories should change to make them more transparent, because frankly they're not transparent enough! Or, we shouldn't get kicked out for this "offence." Fair enough, delete the proposal, send me an explanation of what's wrong with it, and maybe i'll start to understand this over-complicated system. But it's not like i'm deliberately doing anything wrong or being stupid.... i think most people would agree that i'm following common sense! I just don't think that ejection from the UN is the appropriate course of action.
Fritz von Splurgenhof
22-02-2005, 17:38
I agree with my honorable delegate on this one. I recently had one of my proposals, "Height Uniformity" deleted on the grounds that it was "stupid." I feel that this is a rather subjective interpretation. Admittedly, the proposal was a little bizarre but can i be blamed for thinking outside the box? It was well argued and rationally explained, I used good grammar and spelling ( much more than the recent proposal to ban "Herion") and my argument was founded on fact. I happen to think that several of the proposals up for consideration recently have been rather stupid (particularly the dirth of unscientific and frankly wierd abortion proposals) but I also accept that one person's stupid is another person's genius. On that note I wish to know how to make my proposal less stupid so that I may resubmit it. Here it is just in case everyone didn't get chance to read it:
Description: PROBLEM: The average height of individuals in various countries is greatly varied. This leads to an unfair advantage in trade of certain comestibles.

FOR EXAMPLE: In agriculture, particularly the growing of fruit trees. The orchards of nations whose average height is larger than normal may be forced to grow taller, lower yield trees so as to save their employees from bad backs from bending down to pick fruit.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: In the building trade, the nations whose height average is lower will be at a significant economic advantage as houses and dooorways will be built smaller and therefore use less materials and therefore be cheaper to build. This will also have a nock-on effect on the building materials industry.

There are many other such problems which lead to an unfair global marketplace.
THEREFORE in the interests of a FREE AND JUST TRADE ARENA, we would request that all nations, through either genetic modification, compulsory use of the rack, hanging weights from feet or some other scientifically proven method, would ensure that all individuals were 6"4 tall.
A vote for this proposal is another step towards economic justice.

The deletion of my proposal will now go on my permanent record in NS and if i submit a few more seemingly "stupid" proposals then I will also be ejected from the UN. Until stupidity is properly defined in the UN rules or until its definiton becomes less subjective, I think it unfair that my proposal be counted against me. If someone could reply and advise me on how to change my proposal and make it less "stupid" it would be much appreciated.

Yours Faithfully
Grand Duke fritz von Splurgenhof
Hersfold
22-02-2005, 20:19
I've been jsut kicked out of the UN for repeatedly submitting inappropriate proposals. All, bar one, were because the description and content matter didn't match. But in some cases, i disagree! For example, my "redefinition of environment" was under the "environment" category and was deleted! Which one was it meant to be under??? I did one about restricting the age for marriage and put it under human rights, but apparently it should have been under moral decency. Now what on earth has this got to do with morality??? Morality is about how we make our decisions and what ethical framework we adopt - it is NOT about whether 16 yr olds should be allowed to marry in the interest of a healthy marriage. Furthermore, I proposed that we shouldn't disarm all nuclear weapons, and put this under "global disarmament." But this was deleted too! Now common sense would tell me that a proposal about disarmament should be under the disarmament category.

I suggest that either the categories should change to make them more transparent, because frankly they're not transparent enough! Or, we shouldn't get kicked out for this "offence." Fair enough, delete the proposal, send me an explanation of what's wrong with it, and maybe i'll start to understand this over-complicated system. But it's not like i'm deliberately doing anything wrong or being stupid.... i think most people would agree that i'm following common sense! I just don't think that ejection from the UN is the appropriate course of action.

From what you've said, all your proposals were in the wrong category.

"Redefinition of Environment" I have no idea what it could be doing, but unless it was restricting business to increase environment ratings, it didn't belong there.
The marriage one belonged in moral decency because it was restricting human rights, not increasing them.
Finally, if you are saying that we shouldn't disarm nukes, what made you think to put it in the Global Disarmament category? That does disarm. You wanted International Security.

It's really not all that hard. There are many stickies in the UN forum that tell you what each category does, and there's even a little indicator in-game. When you choose a category, a small line appears that says what the proposal will do. In the case of Global Disarmament, it says "A resolution to slash worldwide military spending" - obviously not what you wanted to do. In this case, common sense would have sent you the right way. Sorry to be blunt about it, but that's what I get out of that tirade.

Before you make a Proposal...[READ THIS OR GET EJECTED FROM THE UN] (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176)

Edit: I forgot to mention, you are allowed to re-join the UN with a different nation, unless the mods say otherwise. I don't think they will in this case.
Hersfold
22-02-2005, 20:25
-snip-
:eek: May I ask how tall you are?

That isn't exactly open to interpretation. How would you like getting stung out on a rack because you were just an inch shorter than everyone else?

By the way, even if that was even remotely possible, it's in violation of another resolution. Specifically, "Disallow Torture".

In my nation, if a farmer gets a bad back due to their tall height, they can see a chiropractor.
James Ellis
22-02-2005, 21:36
From what you've said, all your proposals were in the wrong category.

"Redefinition of Environment" I have no idea what it could be doing, but unless it was restricting business to increase environment ratings, it didn't belong there.
The marriage one belonged in moral decency because it was restricting human rights, not increasing them.
Finally, if you are saying that we shouldn't disarm nukes, what made you think to put it in the Global Disarmament category? That does disarm. You wanted International Security.

It's really not all that hard. There are many stickies in the UN forum that tell you what each category does, and there's even a little indicator in-game. When you choose a category, a small line appears that says what the proposal will do. In the case of Global Disarmament, it says "A resolution to slash worldwide military spending" - obviously not what you wanted to do. In this case, common sense would have sent you the right way. Sorry to be blunt about it, but that's what I get out of that tirade.

Before you make a Proposal...[READ THIS OR GET EJECTED FROM THE UN] (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176)

Edit: I forgot to mention, you are allowed to re-join the UN with a different nation, unless the mods say otherwise. I don't think they will in this case.

Ok, firstly my redefinition of environment was saying that we should define it as all-inclusive i.e. to include humans and thus we would start treating it better as we realise that we are a part of the natural world. Now, if that shouldnt come under the environmental category, something is wrong!

I'm ready to accept that i've got the other proposals in the wrong category, but i don't think that justifies ejecting me from the UN! I think that the game rules should be changed on this one... fair enough, kick people out who make horrible proposals, but minor mistakes like mine should not result in the same penalty.
James Ellis
22-02-2005, 21:42
:eek: May I ask how tall you are?

That isn't exactly open to interpretation. How would you like getting stung out on a rack because you were just an inch shorter than everyone else?


Well, how come stupid proposals like "give everyone a gun" get through. How would you like it if everyone had guns? The point is that stupidity is subjective... fair enough, this proposal was not that sensible.... but 1) this is a game! and 2) other far more ridiculous proposals get through, like legalizing all drugs!! Now, this is never going to happen, nor is height uniformity going to happen. But in cases such as these, why can't we just accept that we're not talking real life here and have some fun?? either that or we should delete every single proposal that suggests something that says something which just wouldn't be done in reality (which is a fair few)
Fritz von Splurgenhof
23-02-2005, 00:47
I agree with James on this one, I am not questioning the immorality of my proposal, no more do i question the morality of the proposals of other members. This is surely for the UN to decide. What is important is whether my proposal is "stupid." Immoral and evil as my proposal was, it was well argued and based on fact, unlike many other immoral and frankly stupid proposals that have got through about abortion, guns drugs etc. This is a game and even in the real life UN there is some kind of freedom of speech. Torture or not, I was excercising my right to frank and rational thought in a public forum.

Yours Faithfully
Grand Duke Fritz von Splurgenhof
Hersfold
23-02-2005, 00:50
The rules are set. Three illegal proposals get you kicked out. Period. Like I said, you will be able to rejoin if you apply under a different nation.

Ok, firstly my redefinition of environment was saying that we should define it as all-inclusive i.e. to include humans and thus we would start treating it better as we realise that we are a part of the natural world. Now, if that shouldnt come under the environmental category, something is wrong!
I'd need to see the proposal in full to agree with you there. Since it wouldn't be actively limiting industry of it's own accord, it still wouldn't really belong.
"A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry."

Some stupid proposals get through. The mods aren't able to get to them all. That's why people like me go through every now and then and file reports about propsals that should be deleted. Ask the mods - I've submitted the names of about 100 illegal proposals, many on the grounds that they were unworthy of the UN, inspecific, or just plain stupid. Most of them got deleted after a mod looked them over. But even we miss things. Fritz was just unlucky enough to get nailed. His proposal was completely impractical, and violated a previous resolution anyway.

And also, stupidity is relative. A proposal that says "Give every1 a gun cuz they need it 4 protekshun", while I would cringe at it and probably report it, may be allowed by a mod if it was submitted under "Gun Control - Relax". It says what it will do, and why. However, if it said "Give everyone a gun because they should have them," it may get deleted, even if in the correct category.

Read the stickies. They are there for a reason.
Hersfold
23-02-2005, 00:54
I agree with James on this one, I am not questioning the immorality of my proposal, no more do i question the morality of the proposals of other members. This is surely for the UN to decide. What is important is whether my proposal is "stupid." Immoral and evil as my proposal was, it was well argued and based on fact, unlike many other immoral and frankly stupid proposals that have got through about abortion, guns drugs etc. This is a game and even in the real life UN there is some kind of freedom of speech. Torture or not, I was excercising my right to frank and rational thought in a public forum.

Yours Faithfully
Grand Duke Fritz von Splurgenhof
As I said above, it doesn't matter how evil or whatever it was (We can get evil ones that aren't stupid), it's the fact that it's impractical. Even if you did manage to get someone to 6'4" with a rack, without killing them, they wouldn't be able to move because all of their joints would have been pulled out of place. Putting them back into place would mean losing those all-important few inches. And again, that's still assuming that their spinal cord wouldn't have been ripped to shreds.
DemonLordEnigma
23-02-2005, 01:14
James Ellis, I would have sympathy if I didn't just catch you having spammed the proposals section. I cannot think of a need to submit five proposals at once.

That said, you should have asked a mod just to be sure. It helps to have the mods backing you. Then, you have a case.
Neo-Anarchists
23-02-2005, 01:44
James Ellis, I would have sympathy if I didn't just catch you having spammed the proposals section. I cannot think of a need to submit five proposals at once.

That said, you should have asked a mod just to be sure. It helps to have the mods backing you. Then, you have a case.
If spamming the proposals section is against the ruels, then Free Garza has done that a lot, with one-line proposals, no less.
Actually, now that I think of it, it's rather common-sensical that it would be illegal.
DemonLordEnigma
23-02-2005, 01:46
If spamming the proposals section is against the ruels, then Free Garza has done that a lot, with one-line proposals, no less.
Actually, now that I think of it, it's rather common-sensical that it would be illegal.

Turned him in as well. I still say my favorite is the one that is a proposal that repeals all UN resolutions and makes it illegal for the UN to pass resolutions.
The Most Glorious Hack
23-02-2005, 11:18
James Ellis:

First of all, you were ejected on your fourth bad Proposal, one more than most people get. Secondly, "Redifinition of Environment" didn't fulfill the category requirements, and was nothing more than rhetoric. If it makes you feel better, I found two other proposals that violated the rules and were deleted, bringing your total to at least 6.


Fritz von Splurgenhof:

Perhaps calling it "stupid" was a little harsh. On the other hand, I could have easily handed out an instant UN Ejection for a discriminatory Proposal.
Relaxed
23-02-2005, 13:10
This is a game and even in the real life UN there is some kind of freedom of speech.

Everywhere you go is "some kind of free speech". Even in old Russia, or China was "some kind of free speech". You are being vague. Everywhere you go are rules for what you can say, and what you can't.

Torture or not, I was excercising my right to frank and rational thought in a public forum.

Yours Faithfully
Grand Duke Fritz von Splurgenhof

This forum is as public as Max Barry wants it to be. You have no right to claim anything more, than is given to you by the creator/owner/moderators of this forum.
Fritz von Splurgenhof
23-02-2005, 14:45
Dear Moderators
In light of all of the above, may I request that there should at least be a rewriting of the UN rules because I'm sure there are very few people who break them regarding proposals on purpose. I read through the rules before I submitted my proposal and I must admit I found them quite vague and hard to interpret. As a person's UN mekmbership is at stake, I would think that the rules should be as specific as possible to avoid ejection through the misreading of the rules by a ruler.

Yours Faithfully
Grand Duke fritz von Splurgenhof

P.S. Thankyou for not ejecting me on the grounds of discrimination (not sure it is but it's your game)
P.P.S. Is there any way getting someone in the know to check the proposals that I'm not sure comply with UN rules before I submit them?
Katganistan
23-02-2005, 14:54
The UN forum is there so that your fellow players may help you to review your proposals before submission.
Mudratia
23-02-2005, 17:41
Perhaps calling it [Fritz's height uniformity proposal] "stupid" was a little harsh. On the other hand, I could have easily handed out an instant UN Ejection for a discriminatory Proposal.

Please define "discriminatory proposal".
Taken at face value that is a deeply unworkable principle... especially in the field of business and economics discrimination makes the world go round.
I presume that a proposal to limit black people's wages to half those of whites would (quite rightly) be contra to a previous ruling and so be void.
BUT
What about proposals to ban gay marriage?
Is that not also discriminatory (in the extreme)?
Clarification would be appreciated.
James Ellis
23-02-2005, 17:46
James Ellis:

First of all, you were ejected on your fourth bad Proposal, one more than most people get. Secondly, "Redifinition of Environment" didn't fulfill the category requirements, and was nothing more than rhetoric. If it makes you feel better, I found two other proposals that violated the rules and were deleted, bringing your total to at least 6.


Fritz von Splurgenhof:

Perhaps calling it "stupid" was a little harsh. On the other hand, I could have easily handed out an instant UN Ejection for a discriminatory Proposal.

Nothing more than rhetoric eh? I think not... I could argue my point fully, but i'll just say that if environment was defined as i suggested, then the effects on all industry would be large. Clearly, if environment were to include humans, then industry couldn't pollute it, as this would damage the environment, and therefore be regarded as damaging humans. This would be in direct violation of human rights! I think that is a bit more than rhetoric myself.

And I'm sorry, but just what kind of proposal isn't discriminatory?? Many get through saying "illegalize drugs" but isn't this discriminatory against drug addicts? I don't think that it is possible that a proposal should be made that isn't discriminatory in some sense, and so long as it's not racist or offensive, which the proposal in question clearly is not, then surely you can't threaten it with deletion for being discriminatory.
James Ellis
23-02-2005, 19:08
What about proposals to ban gay marriage?
Is that not also discriminatory (in the extreme)?


Here here, Mr Mudratia! I personally would think that discrimination against race, religion, sexuality... is a far more serious offence than height discrimination. Why can we ban gay marriages but not everyone over 6`4``??
James Ellis
23-02-2005, 19:13
And also, stupidity is relative. A proposal that says "Give every1 a gun cuz they need it 4 protekshun", while I would cringe at it and probably report it, may be allowed by a mod if it was submitted under "Gun Control - Relax". It says what it will do, and why. However, if it said "Give everyone a gun because they should have them," it may get deleted, even if in the correct category.



That proves my point that the rules need changing! If the game allows a proposal to give everyone a gun which is in text language, but not a well argued and gramatically correct proposal about height uniformity, then surely something needs to be done. This just doesn't seem fair!
James Ellis
23-02-2005, 19:18
My proposal against animal buggery also got deleted as it was "obsene." Fair enough i may not have been too subtle in my wording, but i made a serious and valid point, and one which i think many people would have agreed with given the chance. Animal buggery is an obscenity - i don't see any way of making a proposal against it not-obsene. Perhaps you thought i was just having a joke and wanted to be funny? But this is not the case. Nor is it the case that i'm deliberately getting the categories wrong. I would encourage a bit more tolerance on the moderation.
Relaxed
23-02-2005, 19:58
That proves my point that the rules need changing! If the game allows a proposal to give everyone a gun which is in text language, but not a well argued and gramatically correct proposal about height uniformity, then surely something needs to be done. This just doesn't seem fair!

Do you think a person's opinion is worth less than yours, because he is not as bright as you?
Neo-Anarchists
23-02-2005, 21:47
That proves my point that the rules need changing! If the game allows a proposal to give everyone a gun which is in text language, but not a well argued and gramatically correct proposal about height uniformity, then surely something needs to be done. This just doesn't seem fair!
I agree with The Most Glorious Hack's original labelling of "stupid" here on the height proposal:
How does one get everyone who is short stretched out to 6'4" without killing them or making them unable to function?
How does one make taller people short?
What about other races than humans, which are either very short or very tall?

It seems rather commonsensical that it will not work. At all.
Neo-Anarchists
23-02-2005, 21:51
Here here, Mr Mudratia! I personally would think that discrimination against race, religion, sexuality... is a far more serious offence than height discrimination.
:confused:
That's...interesting. The height proposal would have killed a significant part of my coutry's population, had it gone through, I would think, unless we have some magical method of making everybody the right height. Banning gay marriage would only make it so gay people can't marry.

So killing many of the citizens of the world is worse than not letting some of them marry?

Either way, I think we may all be misinterpreting what Hack meant by "discriminatory proposal" anyway.
Hersfold
23-02-2005, 22:08
Discriminatory, I believe in this context, would mean a proposal that sets out to intentionally cause harm to a person or group of people.

In the height proposal, people under 6-4 would have been streched out, and in doing so killed or incapacitated.
In the gay marriage exapmle, banning their marriage(s) is not harming them in any way. The gay people can still be together, they just will not enjoy the right to a legal marriage.

Also, James, yelling at the mods will get you nothing other than a harshly reduced opinion in the mod's eyes, and possibly a forumban. Calm down. I do agree, some of the rules could use a bit of mod interpretation - I've been on the bad side of them twice myself, and I only sucessfully appealed one. But you should be able to get on with what you currently have. If you don't like it, lump it, or ask politely for a clarification. The mods don't respond to rudeness.
DemonLordEnigma
24-02-2005, 01:25
Banning Gay Marriage is currently illegal in the UN. Check the small number of resolutions that deal with it.
The Most Glorious Hack
24-02-2005, 09:16
Nothing more than rhetoric eh? I think not... I could argue my point fully, but i'll just say that if environment was defined as i suggested, then the effects on all industry would be large. Clearly, if environment were to include humans, then industry couldn't pollute it, as this would damage the environment, and therefore be regarded as damaging humans. This would be in direct violation of human rights! I think that is a bit more than rhetoric myself.

Yes, nothing more than rhetoric. It didn't do anything to improve the environment at the expense of industry. Changing the definition of "environment" doesn't accomplish a thing. Had your Proposal passed, what would have happened? How would it affect industry? How would it improve the environment.

Defining humans as separate from the environment only "improves" things through semantic slight-of-hand. If I was to change the definition of a "stupid person" to "Any person who's IQ score is negative," would I have magically eliminated all the stupid people in the world? Of course not. I simply changed the definition without actually doing anything.

Since your proposal would have no qualitative effects, it's just rhetoric. Indeed, it is the very imbodiment of rhetoric, as you were simply playing with semantics. Your Proposal would have had zero qualitative effects and thus would have done nothing. Since the description gave zero effects, it was deleted.

I also note that you're ignoring the fact that you've submitted at least twice as many illegal Proposals as is normally allowed. You should have been kicked out for "Against nuclear disarmament". In fact, the Moderator that deleted that Proposal warned you of this eventuality: "You have had several warnings already, be more careful when you next submit a proposal or you may face ejection from the UN."
Fritz von Splurgenhof
24-02-2005, 11:29
[QUOTE=Neo-Anarchists]What about other races than humans[QUOTE]

What the hell does that mean? Are other races not humans? Sounds a lot more like discrimintation to me. I can't believe anyone would say that! I'm digusted and shocked. Seriously, I'd appreciate it if you didn't air your blatently racist views in this forum.

Yours Faithfully
Grand Duke Fritz von Splurgenhof

:sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :headbang:
Neo-Anarchists
24-02-2005, 11:35
What the hell does that mean? Are other races not humans? Sounds a lot more like discrimintation to me. I can't believe anyone would say that! I'm digusted and shocked. Seriously, I'd appreciate it if you didn't air your blatently racist views in this forum.
-snip gun smilies-
Well, two things:

1) I'm not racist. By "other races than humans", I mean other species of intelligent beings. I wasn't referring to white people and black people or anything like that, I meant intelligent beings other than humans. Sorry if I didn't make it clear enough.
2) Racism does actually seem to be allowed here judging by posts of some people, as long as there is no flaming or trolling going on, as unpleasant as that may be.
Fritz von Splurgenhof
24-02-2005, 11:37
In the height proposal, people under 6-4 would have been streched out, and in doing so killed or incapacitated.
In the gay marriage exapmle, banning their marriage(s) is not harming them in any way. The gay people can still be together, they just will not enjoy the right to a legal marriage.

Dear All
I admit my proposal should have been better worded. I was merely trying to give options to those nations who did not have genetic modification at their fingertips. I realise that my other suggestions for extending or shortening people weren't practical or particularly humane and I didn't realise that such things were not allowed.

Yours Faithfully
Grand Duke Fritz von Splurgenhof
Hersfold
24-02-2005, 15:34
James, as I said before, you are probably allowed to create a new nation and use it to join the UN. Just in the future, I suggest you read the stickies in the UN forum before drafting a proposal, then post a copy in the UN forum before it ever gets submitted. If there is any question to it's legality, call in a mod - politely - to rule on it.

Semantics are allowed in very few cases. You might be able to get away with clarifying a previous resolution, but that is highly unlikely, as we have had a "no amendments" rule ever since I tried to fix my own resolution, #54. (:mad: ) If you ever try anything with semantics, call in a mod first. chances are, you won't be able to submit it unless it actually does something.
James Ellis
24-02-2005, 20:55
Do you think a person's opinion is worth less than yours, because he is not as bright as you?

Did i say that? No! I merely pointed out that proposals written in text language are obviously the result of someone who can't be bothered to use proper english and thus deserve to be deleted more than well-argued and gramatically correct proposals. I made no reference to intelligence or the worth of the opinion expressed in the proposal.
James Ellis
24-02-2005, 20:56
James, as I said before, you are probably allowed to create a new nation and use it to join the UN. Just in the future, I suggest you read the stickies in the UN forum before drafting a proposal, then post a copy in the UN forum before it ever gets submitted. If there is any question to it's legality, call in a mod - politely - to rule on it.

Semantics are allowed in very few cases. You might be able to get away with clarifying a previous resolution, but that is highly unlikely, as we have had a "no amendments" rule ever since I tried to fix my own resolution, #54. (:mad: ) If you ever try anything with semantics, call in a mod first. chances are, you won't be able to submit it unless it actually does something.

Am I allowed to create a new nation with a different email address and therefore have 2 nations on the go at the same time?
James Ellis
24-02-2005, 21:00
:confused:
That's...interesting. The height proposal would have killed a significant part of my coutry's population, had it gone through, I would think, unless we have some magical method of making everybody the right height. Banning gay marriage would only make it so gay people can't marry.

So killing many of the citizens of the world is worse than not letting some of them marry?

Either way, I think we may all be misinterpreting what Hack meant by "discriminatory proposal" anyway.

It has to be said that Fritz isn't talking about killing most of the world's population, just changing them all so that they're the same height. Now, we don't have some magical method of making everyone the right height, but that's what the proposal was about... creating some kind of method and using it in order to overcome trade barriers. It was NOT about killing everyone. Thus, i do think that banning gay marriage is worse than making everyone the same height. Feel free to disagree!
Goobergunchia
24-02-2005, 21:06
Am I allowed to create a new nation with a different email address and therefore have 2 nations on the go at the same time?

You are allowed to have two (or more) nations. However, only one of them may be in the UN at a time.